I answered the press release on aspartame as you see below. I would just like you to know that in the past no reviews have shown safety. It's impossible because almost 100% of independent studies show the problems. The problem is the politics and pressure of the aspartame industry. http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/recent.html#1

In 2002 I came to Brussels and Felicity Mawson, UK Mission Possible and myself, spoke with Miguel-Angel.Granero-Rosell and Peter Wagstaffe of the EU. It was very obvious they were not interested in the damning information I brought them from the US. I also showed them the 1000 page medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by H. J. Roberts, M.D. explaining that aspartame disease is now a global epidemic. They didn't even open the front cover. Their decision had already been made. In the review they didn't even include Dr. H. J. Roberts material at all because it's so
damning. OLAF, the European anti-fraud people investigated and found that only one person made the decision, not a committee, so there was no more Commission on Food, and in its place we now have EFSA.

Here is the rebuttal to the original review: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002.html by Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Center. It was very obvious the aspartame industry didn't want me in Europe. When I got off the plane in England I was locked up for 3 1/2 hours by Immigration with questions like, "If we allow you in England how many people will find out about the dangers of aspartame?" Not exactly the questions you ask someone visiting the UK. They confiscated all my lecture material on aspartame but gave it back in the end when they had me examined by a physician, saying "we want to be sure you're in good health for interrogation since you've been on a plane for 12 hours". I told them I had come to England at my own expense to help people in Europe, and what they were doing was shameful. Now that's power by the aspartame industry who had the power with immigration to try and prevent me from bringing information on aspartame to Europe. They didn't' succeed, of course. They were smart enough to know if they sent me back to America I would be front page news in Europe. I lectured through England before going on to Brussels.

EFSA is also influenced by the aspartame industry. At the time of the first Ramazzini Study they used the most absurd rebuttal saying the rats had respiratory disease so they couldn't accept the study. Experts were laughing in the aisles! This study was for the lifetime of the rat and naturally they had respiratory disease because they were dying. Respiratory disease is the dying process. But, no apology from EFSA. Here is my open letter: http://www.mpwhi.com/letter_to_efsa.htm When we told them of conflict of interests Dr. Koeter resigned, putting out a press release saying they were pressured by industry to hijack science. So the confession was there but EFSA did not change their view. This independent study was peer reviewed by 7 world experts.

Consider the issue of aspartame being a carcinogen has been known for 30 years and the FDA admitted this in Congress.

FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress August 1,1985, at lease one of Searle's studies: Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress at least one of Searle's studies "has established beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance. ... In view of these indications that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?"

The Delaney Amendment made it illegal to allow ANY residue of cancer causing chemicals in foods. Dr Gross concluded his testimony by asking "Given the cancer causing potential of aspartame how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or 'safe' level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a 'tolerance' for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" Congressional Record SID835:131 (8/1/85)

So there you have it. The Bressler Report and the Task force Report also said the original manufacturer simply filtered out cancers and what they didn't want the FDA to see. The fact is the FDA did not willingly approve aspartame but instead revoked the petition for approval. Here is that report: http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_petition1.doc In another email is the 'Aspartame Resource Guide' which gives a short history of how aspartame got on the market. You may already know how aspartame got approved in England and remember the article from the Guardian. If not, here is that report: http://www.wnho.net/how_aspartame_got_approved_in_england.htm

Aspartame was never proven safe and was marketed in the US through the political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld. All of Parliament should see the movie, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World. Here is a clip from it with James Turner, Atty, explaining what Rumsfeld did: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html

So in the UK, EFSA and Food Standards are pressured by industry and obviously they have power over them. Even the other FDA toxicologist who originally investigated aspartame, Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, told Congress in 1987 that aspartame exists in the market place without being proven safe. http://www.mpwhi.com/j_verrett_testimony.pdf

The methanol in aspartame is a serious issue. This is free methyl alcohol that converts to formaldehyde and formic acid and causes metabolic acidosis. In nature methanol is accompanied by ethanol the classic antidote to methanol toxicity and takes it out of your system safely. It also bound to pectin. In aspartame methanol is free, and goes from the gut right into the blood stream. The aspartame industry has for 3 decades used silly propaganda that there is more methanol in oranges than in aspartame, and government agencies put that meaningless info on their web sites as if it is true, no matter how many experts explain.

Since aspartame was never proven safe in the first place, it seems that the NOAEL on aspartame and ADI review should be done first because that will prove aspartame is not safe. In all reviews in Europe because of the pressure of industry the facts are hidden or not used. When two much damning info gets out industry gets their flacks together and puts out a review saying all is well. An example of this is the Burdock review. B. A. Magnuson works for the Burdock Group, and the review is paid for by Ajinomoto. You really don't think Ajinomoto is going to have them include all the damning studies? Look at this peer reviewed journal article on methanol. http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_methanol_and_public_health.pdf Ajinomoto would rather no one know about the seriousness of the free methyl alcohol. That's why they changed the name of aspartame to AminoSweet which is very deceiving since its the methanol that sweetens it not the excitoneurotoxic amino acids. Here is the rebuttal to the Burdock review: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock

Read this letter to the FDA on the methanol issue: http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_violates_data_quality_act.htm In the movie Sweet Misery they go to a prison where you see Diane Fleming spending 30 years for poisoning her husband with methanol. In reality it was aspartame that killed him with its free methyl alcohol, and interacted with the overdose of creatine he used. Diane passed 3 lie detector tests. There are other cases. The FDA has not answered the above letter because they have now admitted they never did a NOAEL on the methanol. This is very serious and must be done before we go further on aspartame.

I'm glad to see this but note this comment. "EFSA was created in 2002 and dealt with aspartame several times between 2006 and 2009 and has never had any indication that aspartame presents a risk in terms of genotoxicity or carcinogenesis,"

In reality EFSA has received constant complaints and given evidence of genotoxicity and carcinogenesis. You see where they dismissed the Ramazzini Studies which showed that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen (peer reviewed by 7 world experts) and the Denmark study showing aspartame jumps preterm births. If they dismiss all independent scientific peer reviewed studies what they saying to the world is, "we accept no independent research, only industry controlled and paid for studies to defend the product." The aspartame industry has proven they can't get aspartame to show safety. FDA asked for indictment of G. D. Searle, the original manufacturer for fraud because they got caught doing things like excising brain tumors, putting the rats back in the study, and resurrecting them on paper when they died. Monsanto couldn't do any better - note scientific abuse in their studies: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse

The aspartame industry has shown over three decades their studies are not acceptable, and therefore, industry controlled and financed studies are of no value. All aspartame studies should be independently done. Then you have almost 100 per cent of studies showing aspartame is not safe.

The interesting thing is that it's all a matter of public record. For instance in the congressional hearings which we have on http://www.mpwhi.com, scroll down to banners, you see the FDA themselves said aspartame causes cancer. Furthermore, Dr. Adrian Gross, toxicologist, admitted FDA should not have been able to set an allowable daily intake. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, FDA toxicologist, told Congress in 1987 even at this date aspartame has never been proven safe, yet has been on the market since 1981.

The FDA in the 1970's said aspartame causes birth defects. The major problem is today they lie and deny and refuse to comply.

If EFSA continues to dismiss all independent, scientific peer reviewed studies in favor of the aspartame industry's scientifically abused studies they are proving beyond any shadow of a doubt their loyalty is to the aspartame industry and not the people they are suppose to protect.

UK Food Standards refuses to answer questions with comments like, "we are not likely to agree". The reason they won't answer the questions is the case has been proven, and they have no defense, especially on the free methyl alcohol issue. They have received indepth information by Jim McDonald of the UK Aspartame Awareness Campaign. Basically they take "the fifth" because if they answer the questions honestly they have to admit aspartame is a chemical poison that has never been proven safe.

Also, the FDA, Food Standards, and EFSA simply ignore new studies hoping they will go away. What about the recent study linking diet soda to heart attacks and strokes? Not a word and if you ask they will probably dismiss this study too, even though its not the first time studies have shown this but recently the third just on this subject. http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_and_sudden_death.htm

ROME The European Commission has requested a complete review of the safety of aspartame in response to concerns over the widely used sweetener, the European Food Safety Authority said Wednesday.

"We have received an official request for a complete re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame," Lucia De Luca, a spokeswoman for the Italy-based organisation, told AFP, adding that the request was still being examined.

"The re-evaluation is scheduled for 2020 but the commission asked us to do this re-evaluation now in the light of recent events," she said.

Aspartame is the most widely used artificial sweetener in the world.

EFSA in February dismissed two recent studies linking aspartame with increased cancer rates and pre-term births but De Luca said the European Commission had not carried out its own review for several years.

"EFSA was created in 2002 and dealt with aspartame several times between 2006 and 2009 and has never had any indication that aspartame presents a risk in terms of genotoxicity or carcinogenesis," she said.

"EFSA has therefore found no reason to revise its previously established daily admissible dose of aspartame of 40 milligrammes per kilogramme of body weight."